9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 460 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - input services - canteen services - rent a cab services/bus service - Courier services - Held that - in the present case, the appellant have not provided the service of catering to any particular employee and as such the exclusion Clause C in Rule 2(l) does not apply - credit allowed. Rent-a-cab service - Held that - service is bus service received by the appellant company for transport of their employees to and from residence to the factory, the exclusion Clause C does not apply - credit allowed. Courier expenses - Held that - the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is cryptic and nonspeaking by observing that the appellant failed to adduce evidence. There is no case made out by the leaned Commissioner (Appeals) that any particular details requisitioned from the appellant, which were not produced - courier expense is essential business expenditure in the nature of postal expenses for exchange of business documents, including samples - service is also allowable as input credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved:
Disallowance of CENVAT credit on canteen services, rent a cab services/bus service, and courier services for the period April 2011 to January 2012. Analysis: 1. Disallowance of CENVAT credit on various services: The issue in this appeal pertains to the disallowance of CENVAT credit on canteen services, rent a cab services/bus service, and courier services for the period April 2011 to January 2012. The appellant, a manufacturer of pharmaceuticals, faced objections regarding the eligibility of these services as 'input services' under Rule 2(l)(ii) of CCR. The show-cause notice raised demands amounting to ?2,08,442/- along with penalties, which were partially confirmed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and reduced to ?1,95,543/-. The appellant contested this decision before the Tribunal, arguing against the reliance on exclusion clauses and lack of evidence for courier services. 2. Exclusion clauses and precedent rulings: The learned Commissioner (Appeals) based the disallowance on exclusion clauses introduced in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, particularly excluding canteen services and rent-a-cab services from the definition of input services. The appellant argued against this interpretation, citing precedent rulings from co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal. The appellant highlighted the relevance of specific wording in circulars and rulings to support the admissibility of CENVAT credit for services used primarily for business activities rather than personal use. 3. Tribunal's decision and reasoning: The Tribunal analyzed the contentions and precedent rulings presented by the appellant. Regarding canteen services, the Tribunal found that the exclusion clause did not apply as the services were not provided to any particular employee. For rent-a-cab services and bus services, the Tribunal relied on previous orders to support the admissibility of CENVAT credit. In the case of courier expenses, the Tribunal criticized the lack of specific evidence or notices in the Commissioner's order and deemed courier services as essential business expenditure eligible for input credit. 4. Conclusion and Tribunal's decision: After considering the arguments and precedent rulings, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellant was granted entitlement to benefits in accordance with the law. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of exclusion clauses, the nature of services provided, and the lack of evidence or justification for disallowance. The judgment emphasized the importance of specific evidence and legal interpretations in determining the eligibility of CENVAT credit for various services. 5. Final verdict and implications: In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision in this case highlights the significance of legal interpretations, precedent rulings, and the requirement for specific evidence in determining the admissibility of CENVAT credit on different services. The judgment serves as a guide for future cases involving similar issues of disallowance and eligibility of input credit under the relevant tax laws and regulations. This detailed analysis of the legal judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved, the arguments presented, the Tribunal's decision, and the implications for similar cases in the future.
|
